The Simplified Enterprise Architecture Management Methodology for Teaching Purposes

  • Dmitry KudryavtsevEmail author
  • Evgeny Zaramenskikh
  • Maxim Arzumanyan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 332)


Enterprise architecture allows one to describe, analyze and design a company from the point of view of its structure, functioning and goals. Both business and IT components of an organization are considered in it. Enterprise architecture management methods and technologies help companies to implement their digital strategy, establish enterprise coherence and coordinate business transformation. Teaching enterprise architecture in universities is a difficult task because of the interdisciplinary nature of the subject, its generalized character and close connection with practical experience. In addition, modern enterprise architecture management methodologies are difficult for students and contain many details that are relevant to specific situations. Although there are several methodologies and approaches for enterprise architecture teaching, they do not reflect a recent change in application scenarios for enterprise architecture – shift from business-IT alignment to enterprise coherence and business transformation coordination. The work offers a simplified methodology of enterprise architecture management, which on the one hand will be available for students’ comprehension, and, on the other hand, will allow students to understand and apply in practice the main methods and technologies of enterprise architecture. Requirements for the methodology are also collected and presented in the paper. The proposed methodology is used in several universities and demonstration of its application within the business school of one university is provided.


Enterprise architecture Enterprise modeling Teaching Enterprise transformation 


  1. 1.
    Zachman, J.: A framework for information systems architecture. IBM Syst. J. 26(3), 276–292 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Proper, H.A., Lankhorst, M.M.: Enterprise architecture-towards essential sensemaking. Enterp. Model. Inf. Syst. Arch. 9(1), 5–21 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lapalme, J., Gerber, A., Van der Merwe, A., Zachman, J., De Vries, M., Hinkelmann, K.: Exploring the future of enterprise architecture: a Zachman perspective. Comput. Ind. 79, 103–113 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lankhorst, M., et al.: Enterprise Architecture at Work, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2017). Scholar
  5. 5.
    TOGAF – The Open Group Architectural Framework (2011). Accessed 07 May 2016
  6. 6.
    Aier, S., Kurpjuweit, S., Saat, J., Winter, R.: Business Engineering Navigator-A “Business to IT” Approach to Enterprise Architecture Management (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietz, J.L., et al.: The discipline of enterprise engineering. Int. J. Org. Des. Eng. 3(1), 86–114 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harmsen, F., Proper, H.A.E., Kok, N.: Informed governance of enterprise transformations. In: Proper, E., Harmsen, F., Dietz, J.L.G. (eds.) PRET 2009. LNBIP, vol. 28, pp. 155–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Proper, H., Winter, R., Aier, S., de Kinderen, S.: Architectural Coordination of Enterprise Transformation. Springer, Cham (2018). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunting and Harvesting in a Digital World: Insights From the 2013 Gartner CIO Agenda Report. Gartner research report (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wagter, R., Proper, H.A.E., Witte, D.: A practice-based framework for enterprise coherence. In: Proper, E., Gaaloul, K., Harmsen, F., Wrycza, S. (eds.) PRET 2012. LNBIP, vol. 120, pp. 77–95. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sandkuhl, K., et al.: From expert discipline to common practice: a vision and research agenda for extending the reach of enterprise modeling. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 60(1), 69–80 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bernaert, M., Poels, G., Snoeck, M., De Backer, M.: CHOOSE: towards a metamodel for enterprise architecture in small and medium-sized enterprises. Inf. Syst. Front. 18(4), 781–818 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koning, H., Bos, R., Brinkkemper, S.: A lightweight method for the modelling of enterprise architectures. In: Feuerlicht, G., Lamersdorf, W. (eds.) ICSOC 2008. LNCS, vol. 5472, pp. 375–387. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank, U.: Multi-perspective enterprise modeling: foundational concepts, prospects and future research challenges. Softw. Syst. Model. 13(3), 941–962 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bock, A., Frank, U.: MEMO GoalML: a context-enriched modeling language to support reflective organizational goal planning and decision processes. In: Comyn-Wattiau, I., Tanaka, K., Song, I.-Y., Yamamoto, S., Saeki, M. (eds.) ER 2016. LNCS, vol. 9974, pp. 515–529. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kudryavtsev, D., Grigoriev, L.: Ontology-based business architecture engineering technology. In: The 10th International Conference on Intelligent Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques, pp. 233–252, 28–30 September 2011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lankhorst, M.M., Proper, H.A., Jonkers, H.: The anatomy of the ArchiMate language. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Model. Des. 1(1), 1–32 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wegmann, A., Regev, G., de la Cruz, J.D., Lê, L.S., Rychkova, I.: Teaching enterprise architecture and service-oriented architecture in practice. In: 2nd Workshop on Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR 2007). Via Nova Architectura, pp. 13–22 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wegmann, A.: On the Systemic Enterprise Architecture Methodology (SEAM). In: Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems Angers, France, pp. 483–493 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Buckl, S., Matthes, F., Schulz, C., Schweda, C.M.: Teaching enterprise architecture management–a practical experience. Technical report, Chair for Informatics 19 (sebis), Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Österle, H., et al.: Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 20(1), 7–10 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M.A., Chatterjee, S.: A design science research methodology for information systems research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 24(3), 45–77 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kudryavtsev, D., Gavrilova, T.: From anarchy to system: a novel classification of visual knowledge codification techniques. Knowl. Process Manag. 24(1), 3–13 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nisula, K., Pekkola, S.: How to move away from the silos of business management education? J. Educ. Bus. 93(3), 97–111 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y.: Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. Wiley, Hoboken (2010)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes. Harvard Business Press, Boston (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dmitry Kudryavtsev
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evgeny Zaramenskikh
    • 2
  • Maxim Arzumanyan
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Management St. Petersburg UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Financial University Under the Government of the Russian FederationMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations